Guitar hero on the roof

December 2012

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nevel (instrument), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jim1138 (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

---

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Jim1138 (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Kinnor

Please make sure to source your content. Also, please check your work. You are letting spelling error thorugh. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will read about how to do the source thing now. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Jews"

I saw your message regarding "choosing" to be Jewish. Are you saying that in regard to what I wrote about the holocaust? If so, I don't see how it matters - They were viewed as Jews, despite the fact that not all of them believed in Judaism, or considered themselves members of the Jewish people - They were murdered because they were viewed as such, not because of their personal views on the ethnoreligious decision whether to be Jewish or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talk • contribs) 15:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Ethnicity

Hi. Just to let you know, this is not a complaint in any way, shape or form. I just wanted to point out how much people are all over the place on the idea of Jewish ethnicity. I am Jewish, and much of my father's family was killed by the Nazis. As you know, the Nazis (notice, Nazi does not equal German) considered the Jews an inferior ethnic group at the time. So, I have always found calling Jews an ethnic group something that is only meaningful to anti-Semites and so thoroughly dislike it. Germans saying this may very well be the exact opposite of Holocaust denial. They killed people over a false enthnicity. Jewish ethnicity is essentially in the same group(s) as the Arabs, Turks, Armenians and Persians as I understand it, with most now more heavily European through intermarriage and other less friendly things. Plus, you can be a Jew and have 0% so-called Jewish ethnicity (conversion, adoption, etc). So, as you can see, some consider the idea of Jews as an ethnic group a pro-Nazi expression (I know I am not alone). I was amazed when I found other Jews considering it to be 180-degrees the other way. Again, not complaining, but just explaining how the same issue can be taken multiple ways.Sposer (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Genetic prooves show we are an ethnic group. It’s a fact. The problem with the Nazis was not that they pointed out we are an ethnic group but the fact they wanted to kill us. I understand your position, but think about it, saying we are not an ethnic group it’s what plays into the hands of the anti-Semites who are trying to say w have no right for Israel. The fact is, genetically we are different, we are a Semitic nation with our own languages and our own culture and that’s nothing we need to hide or be ashamed off. Being afraid to admit we are an ethnicity out of fear of the Nazis just plays into their hands. We should just be proud of what we are. All ethnic groups, all minorities should be able to express themselves without fear of persecution.

That the thing, it's not a matter of how you feel about it. If someone converted to Judaism they are Jews by religion, but ethnically they are not. But if an ethnic Jew converts to christianity he is still ethnically Jewish because you don't change your genes by conversion. Jews arean ethnoreligios group, which means an ethnic group formed around a religion. You can take it as a religion or as an ethnicity, you can be one without the other. Einstein considered himself a Jew on an ethnic level but on a religios level he had nothning to do with Judaism and his views are a mixture between Deistic and Agnostic views, and it has nothing to do with his ethnicity. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that many Jews are Jews ethnically, and others are not. I understand, but disagree on the Nazi point, but that is an opinion. I am proud that I am a Jew, but do not care whether I am an ethnic jew. I do not care either way of why I am a Jew. There is a Jewish ethnic group and the religion of the ethnic group can vary. I guess that is what Evildoer says. The American Jew article and what most people consider a Jew requires ethnicity and not another religion the way it is presented. The ethnic jew is a scientific explanation - a taxonomy. A Jew is a combination and requires some sort of tie to the religion. And at least culturally, Einstein was a Jew. If he had considered himself another religion, he would not be a Jew. Bobby Fisher did not die as a Jew (but he did die as a jew).Sposer (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point that it's not an opinion but a fact that the Jews are an ethnic group and a religion and those identities don't have to match. The Jews have their own genes which come from the middle east, the Jews before assimilation maintained their own languages and culture and even after assimilation most of them still married Jews to keep the future generations Jewish. I don’t consider myself a Jew by religion and I don’t care if my descendants are Jewish or no, but the fact is, Jews are an ethnic group , and weather it’s important or no, it’s a fact. I also don’t think it’s important if a person is a Jew or not, what matters is the human being and not what his genes are.

Bobby Fisher hated the fact he’s A Jew, but the fact is, ethnically he was Jewish and there’s nothing he could do about it because it’s his genes. I feel sorry for him because I don’t think he was a bad guy, I think the pressure on him damaged him mentally and I don’t think he had it under control. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually do not disagree with anything you are saying. Being a jew (ethnically) and being a Jew according to one's religion need not overlap at all. My personal definition is irrelevant and unimportant. You are no less a Jew, regardless of your ethnicity, if you follow the religion. However, an ethnic jew is not a Jew if they follow another religion. The point I am making is there is no required overlap. That is all. No value judgement anywhere. Interesting conversation. Thanks. (Also, do not take any positive or negative meaning out of my capitalization. I do that because I always capitalize religions.) Take care. Sposer (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That's actually the interesting part. Usually a Jew who changes a religion doesnt want to be a Jew and wants to be totally assimilated, by in fact ethnically this person is still Jewish because his genes didn't change. For example the siger Billy Joel. His family converted to Christianity, but c'mmon, just look at the guy and how he plays the piano :-) But really, ethnically he's still a Jew because his genes are Jewish. If he is married to a non Jew, his child is still half Jewish. I enjpyed the conversation to! That's the thing about ethnoreligious group, they do have some difficulties with defenitions sometimes. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war (removing established content); according to the reverts you have made on Austrians. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --IIIraute (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

About the Germans article talk page

I just came across the long discussion on Germans talk page, I didn't comment there yet but I will probably later. I am posting here because your edits seem to be very problematic in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia - deciding what certain groups of people are or are not, and that you think you know for sure what "The Jews" really are or are not (that a Jew cannot be German for example) and everyone else is wrong - are matters of your own opinions, not facts. I with you on Einstein because he had a strong Jewish identity, it makes more sense for him to be included on Ashkenazi Jews page than on Germans page. But to say that someone like Karl Marx, who probably didn't have any Jewish identity at all, shouldn't be on the infobox because of his "genes" is something one writes in a message board opinion piece, not in Wikipedia. For example, if some historian will claim tomorrow that he has found that all of Marxs' forebears were German converts to Judaism, what then will you say? "Oh, sorry, I was wrong then, he can be included in German ethnicity article"? Not that I think it's a possibility, but will you then realize that there's no specific gene that makes someone German or Jewish or Bulgarian and so on? Yuvn86 (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said a Jew can be German. A Jew can be British, Russian, Israeli, anything, that’s a matter of nationality. But a person who is an ethnic Jew is not an ethnic German unless one parent is a Jew and another is a German simply because Jews are a separate ethnic group. That’s all. The problem in the discussion there is that they claim that German Jews are ethnic Germans of Jewish religion, which is not the case. It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a fact, Jews are an ethnic group weather they like it or not. Go to the Jews article and read the section about genetics, go to a similar one in the Germans article. People come from certain origins and have certain genes which are part of their identity, which is normal. Not everyone has the same genes, which is good otherwise the world would be less interesting. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, not everyone has the same genes - and there's no specific gene that makes someone a German. So on what basis do you believe Marx cannot be considered German if he was assimilated and considered himself such? You think all ethnic Germans are really 100% of ancient Germanic tribes? Don't you see a problem if Wikipedia starts going by "ethnic purity" on such articles? Yuvn86 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Einstein never considered himself German, he always said he is a Jew, there were many quotes brought there and even some of the German editors agreed that Einstein should be removed (though expressing a different opinion earlier). I don't think all Germans are 100% German, just like I don't think Jews are 100% Semitic, but the fact is, if a person has Jewish parents, Jewish grandparents and his ancestors as far as we know married Jewish people (I wonder why?), then this person is ethnically Jewish. There were always censuses and one of the questions was ethnicity, and in all censuses in Germany a certain amount of the population stated they were Jewish, and they have this question in censuses to this day. People have different ethnicities. If Marx would have 1 great-grandfather we know of who would be ethically German I would say sure put him in, but unless we have proof for that it's specilations. As far as we know Einstein and Marx were ethnically Jewish. Sure, they probably had some non Jewish genes, but were they Slavic? Germanic? Did it play a role in their identity? As far as we know they were Jews. Tony Blair was Scottish, but how do we know he didn't have English genes? Maybe he did, especially because some Anglo-Saxons actually settled in the area he lived in, but no one says he is of English ethnicity because as far as we know he is of Scottish ethnicity, and no one says it's racism if you say he's Scottish and not English, because it's effect, as long as no one says he's not British because he's not English, because that is already racism. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, "blood purity" is very important in your edits. Well, this is 2013 and not 1930's you know. Nothing made Marx Jewish except for maybe a chromosome that goes back to biblical Jews 2,000 years ago, and that's it. To insist he couldn't be a true German because of that is a creepy matter of opinion, not fact. And for the record, I'm of Jewish background too, like you, I am not a German who writes this because he feels gulity for the Holocaust or anything. Yuvn86 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading your comment looks like you wrote what you have to say even before you read my answer. I said "blood purity" doenst exist, but ethnicity depends on what a person sees himself and on what his family saw itself through the years. What do you mean by "true German"? Your genes don't prevent you from being a German citizen. But if you call a "true German" in the ethnic sense (though now the racism comes from you, so a German citizen is not a true German?), then yes, you can't be ethnically German if you are not ethnically German. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Germans. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Your canvassing was about as blatant, biased, and one-sided as it can get. Do this again and you will be blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Guitar hero on the roof. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 06:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Germans TP

Listen, I don't know what you try to do-but please don't ever touch my comments. Please restore them all on the TP. If you fail to do that I will open an AN/I case against you. I'm getting the impression that your calling to me to participate in this discussion is not a coincidence -did you have any other username on Wikipedia and did we ever got to contact of any kind on Wikipedia? --Gilisa (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You can be sure I didn't delete them on purpose, I tried to delete and re-write the ending of my sentence so sorry for that. I will return whatever I find! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I returned one. Was there anything else I deleted and need to return? I'm really sorry for it! Really didn't mean to! I wouldn't do it (especially because I agree with it). Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of non-neutral section header at Talk:Germans

Section headers must be neutral rather than pushing your POV. "In Conclusion: Concensus to remove Einstein and_Marx" is seriously misleading. There may have been a temporary shift of consensus right after your canvasing campaign (for which you were warned separately), but that does not mean things can't return to normal now that the problem has been mentioned to the wider community at WP:ANI.

Don't edit war to restore the POV heading. [1]

Also, I note your continued refusal to acknowledge that your racist definition of ethnicity is at odds with modern mainstream definitions. Simply repeating the same incorrect claims does not help. I paid for an argument; this is not an argument, its just contradiction. Hans Adler 13:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated canvassing for Talk:Germans

• 9 January: Blatantly non-neutral notifications to 5 editors [2]. You were warned for this by Demiurge1000.
• 13 January: Blatantly non-neutral notifications (fake sense of urgency, programming a result) to 5 editors [3]
• 15 January: Urging 6 editors to participate in the discussion: the 5 you canvassed before and 1 who you know disagrees with you and was going to comment anyway. [4]

Hans Adler 14:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not canvassing rather asking if they want to add something. Where do you see me telling them what to say? Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I mentioned you at WP:ANI#User talk:Guitar hero on the roof. Hans Adler 14:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest not call other people racist and strike any personal references to the editors in your last post.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who claims that ethnic Jews can't be ethnic Germans obviously subscribes to a completely outdated, racist definition of ethnicity. Talk:Germans is full of clearly racist statements by this user, and this is relevant to the behavioural problem.

Example: "A person can choose an identity, like an Italian American can see his main identity as American and not feel Italian in any way, but ethnically he will still be Italian, it's not changeable. It's your genes, where your ancestors came from. I don't see what's your problem just admitting the fact that Jews are a separate ethnicity. Einstein never identified as a German but for a reason a few Germans here insist on having some ownership on him (after trying to kill him and his people)." Hans Adler 15:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And it's 100% true. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I've blocked you 48 hours for this, coming on top of all the warnings and discussion. For future reference, when you are under scrutiny and are the subject of discussion at AN/I, it's probably better to avoid calling anyone a "troll". I'd also like you to avoid the area of ethnicity entirely when or if you return. Thanks, --John (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I was called racist and neo-Nazi but no one did anything about it. Second, when I return I will edit on ethnicity. In the discussion there were many people presenting the same view and arguments as me. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Who called you a neonazi? That would be a very serious offense - please provide a diff so we can punish the culprit.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What about this [5]?His violation of WP:NPA didn't happen in the vacuum--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect Guitar hero had been throwing around persona attacks for two weeks before Hans Adler even showed up. And He is not calling Guitar hero a neo-Nazi he is pointing out the fact that we don't know eachother's identities and that we can't use claims about our ethnicity as leverage in discussions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the link: [6] And here is what Hans Adler said: "don't know if you are really a Jew, a trolling neo-Nazi or just looking for 'fun' at this article. And pointing to a discussion in which you made comments of this nature as evidence that a long-standing consensus has been replaced by a new consensus (after your extended canvassing campaign) that can now no longer be changed – that was a bad move. We are no longer in the 1930s, when racism was an uncontroversial mainstream opinion." I think that's someting Adler should be blocked for. I said ethnicity is based on genes and identity, I never said one ethnicity is better then the other simply because I believe everyone are equal. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Now here is a quote from the ethnicity article: Among the first to bring the term "ethnic group" into social studies was the German sociologist Max Weber, who defined it as:

"[T]hose human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists."

And that's exactly my point! I'm a Jew with ancestors who lived in Germany, but they could never claim German ethnicity (not that they wanted to). Why? Because Jews and Germans are different ethnicities, though can share a common nationality! They don't have belief in common descent (genetics) and they don't have common memories of migration (how the German tribes in Germany formed one only ethnic identity has nothing to do with how Jews formed their's) Also, the Jews came to Germany, lived in closed communities, then most of them left to eastern Europe, then a lot of them came back, and again lived in closed communities. Then came the emancipation and Jews assimilated culturally, but think! Why did Einstein's and Marx's ancestors marry only the Jews? Einstein himself stated he didn't see it as a religious identity but as an ethnic identity. And that's the point, Jews remained a separate ethnic group, otherwise they wouldn't exist anymore and their children would know only of Germany identity. Those are two different ethnic groups with different origin and history! I don't see where is the racism in what I wrote. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Another link: [7] "While you can't change your ethnicity, you can work to get better quality healthcare and better access to early detection tools". Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a typically American use of "ethnicity" as a euphemism for race and it is also not a reliable source but a promotional website about cancer research. When you say that "ethnicity" is fixed in the genes that is racist because it relies on the idea that ethnic groups are pure and characterized by essential biological characteristics which is demonstrably false. Yes there is often a tendency for ethnic endogamy but it is always only a tendency and there is not a single individual on earth who has genes from only a single ethnic group. And yes Jews could claim German ethicity and many did, giving up their names, their religion and their culture in order to become ethnically German. Then along came Hitler and redefined Jewishness in terms of race and genetics - and they were legally stripped of the ethnicity they had already claimed. Now about returning to editing you cannot keep doin what you have been doing: you need to stop canvassing, you need to stop thinking that your claim that something is a fact is a valid argument without supporting it with reliable sources, and you need to start listening to what other editors say and respond to that without misrepresenting their statements. If you do this you can come back and edit any topic you like and espouse whatever POV you like.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If jews always lived in closed communities and never mixed with the Germans why do they look like Germens and not Middle Eastern? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.102 (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read the whole discussion you would see that I stated many times there is no such thing as "blood purity". Everyone have genes coming from a different place. Jews have mostly genes from the middle east, but they also have genes of people who converted to Judaism or from the pogrom rapes. The English have some Scandinavian blood. The Germans have some Slavic blood. It's obvious! But the point is, when you see a person where as far as we know he, his parents, his grandparents were Jewish, there is no reason to assume he has any other ethnicities he has any other ethnicity but Jewish, because as far as he's concerned he has no other ethnicity.

Jews in Germany never claimed to be of German ethnicity, otherwise they would not keep on marrying Jews. Jews were stripped of their nationality, they were kicked of a country they were loyal to. Einstein said it clearly when he said he is Jewish and wants nothing to do with Germans, while never in his life he referred to himself as German. In the cencuses in ethnicity people were stating Jewish. It says it all! They were Germans by nationality, but not by ethnicity. The fact that Einstein's and Marx's ancestors made sure to marry only Jews shows they did see themselves different from Germans and didnt't see themselves as the same ethnicity! It has nothing to do with nationality though. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Look the issue is this: just because you consider yourself a Jew you don't get to define other's ethnicity for them. You cannot simply assume that your idea of ethnicity is shared by everyone who is a Jew, and that everyone who is a Jew consider themselves to be only Jews and not have any other ethnicity. And frankly the notion that you keep repeating that the only way for "gentile genes" to pass into the Jewish people is through rape is offensive in the extreme, and also of course factually incorrect. In the case of Marx you are speaking against his own explicity statment that he was not a Jew, just like his father also didn't consider himself a Jew. Yes they had Jewish ancestry, but just like Einstein disowned his German ancestry they disowned their Jewish ancestry. The quote you picked form the article on ethnicity shows this - the ethnic group is not defined by actual blood ties, but by the idea that there is a shared heritage. And finally you need to realize that your view is only one of many views, and not "a fact". When it comes to ethnicity and identity there are no facts, only an extremely complex mosaic that keeps changing over time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Einstein didn't have any known German ancestry. As far as we know, he was of full Jewish descent. That's all I'm going to say here.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't denounce ancestry, you can't change where your father was born and what he did. What Einstein renounced was citizenship, but nationality is changable. Could Elton John decide his not of English ethnicity anymore? Could he delete his Anglo-Saxon ancestors? That's my point! From the other hand, can I become a Zulu? I like Zulu history, know their cultures, but can I decide I am them? Know, because that's not my ethnicity and tthe history of my family and their origin.

When he spoke about blood ties he refered to literally family ties like in a tribe. Obviously ethnicities didn't start from one man but from tribes uniting and creating a new identity replacing their old ones!

If you read Marx's biography you would see that the reason his father changed a religion was anti-Semitism which would prevent his sone from making a career. The fact is, though changing religion, you can't change who your ancestors are.

You are right by the fact ethnicity is defined by shared heritage, but part of the heritage is history, and part of the history is origin, the last two parts are somehow connected to genes because genes are shaped in those proceces.

When you call me racist I don't think it's fair. If you would know me you would know the fact I hate racism, I think people should marry into other ethnicities so their kids could identify with as many ethnicities as possible and I can't stand all types of discrimination or hate based on sex, ethnicity, race, colour or social status. Racism is when someone says that someone is better then someone else because of one of those factors, and that's something I would never support! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not call you a racist. I say that certain things you say rely on and perpetuate racist views and attitudes. I think most people sometimes say things that others consider racist. I would only ever call someone a racist if they unashamedly considered races o exist and their own to be the superior. To say that ethnicity is fixed in the genes is however a statement that produces racism, and which relies on racist misunderstandings of the relation between culture, history and genes. Elton John could start defining himself as non-British by focusing instead on his Irish, Danish or Norman ancestors, and you could become a Zulu if you went to South Africa learned the Zulu language and were accepted by the Zulus as one of their own, particularly for example if you had been adopted into a Zulu family at a young age. It is right that some ethnic groups would never accept a member that looks phenotypically different, but for just as many ethnic groups that is not the case and you can become a member if you share whichever values and customs they consider defining of their ethnic group.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to respond you about the rape thing. It's no actually a "Jews against non-Jews" claim. Every ethnic group which was ever occipied or minority that was attacked experienced rapes. Jews before the emancipation lived in closed communities and if you married a non-Jew you would be expelled. The only way to get a child from a non-ethnic Jew would be to marry a convert, or the horror of being raped. When studying history in university it was mentioned that after pogroms many women gave birth 9 month after the attacks while they got married after they got pregnant, that's something that happened to a smaller scale at other times. Do you understand what I mean now? Unfortunately, many experienced it. Russian women were raped by Mongolians, Serbian and Bulgarian by Turkish, Native American by white men, I never said it was something that was aimed only at Jews.

Elton John could start not identifying as British, true, but British is not ethnicity, it's a nationality. But if he has no other ethnicity by English, could he start identfying as non-English? He could, but what he change the fact his ancestors were Anglo-Saxons and through all those generations considered themselves English? That's the point.

I could become a tribe member of Zulu if I go through a certain procedure (which would be awesome), but it wouldn't create a common origin and history, which is an important part of ethnic identity.

In the articles English people and Scots they don't have even one Jew or black person, why? Because they are not ethnically English. But would anyone doubt the fact they are British? Maybe BNP, but those are nutcases, no one cares what they think. The fact is, a black person and a Jew are as British as an English person and a Scotsman. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Every ethnic groups that has ever existed has intermarried with members of other groups out of their free will, even when sometimes there is strong social control. Jewish women of their own free will have married gentile men, and jewish men have married gentile women for three thousand years. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Don't forget that until a certain point Jews lived in closed communities and rabbis had a lot of control there. Don't forget what happened to Spinoza for expressing his views. If you wanted to get married you had the permission of the rabbi, and don't forget this is before Reform and Conservative Judaism, and rabbis would not allow to marry a non Jews unless they converted to Judaism. I remember in university hearing about 9 month after pogroms Jewish women gave birth, and they got married after they got pregnant, which was rare in the Jewish community in different times, so that's what I was refering to. Similar things happened during crusades. It did happen Jewish women fell in love with non-Jewish man like in Fiddler on the Roof, but in those cases the women usually had to leave the community. Don't forget, Jews are an ethnoreligious group, which means ethnic group which originally formed around religion. Until the last few centuries people didn't give much weight to ethnicity and religion played a bigger role. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Let me rephrase slightly. I shouldn't have said "I'd also like you to avoid the area of ethnicity entirely when or if you return." I should have said "Avoid the area of ethnicity from this moment forward." Here's why. You have made several statements regarding ethnicity and race that are not only deeply offensive but extremely unhelpful to our task here, to jointly build a free encyclopaedia. It seems apparent to me that you are unable to discuss these topics in a constructive or collegial way with others. Until you realise that this whole area has been a very difficult and sensitive area on Wikipedia and in the wider world (the Holocaust is a case that springs to mind), and also that there is a substantial body of scientific and other academic work on the topic, and become familiar with it, there is no benefit to your involvement in the area. I am also not here to discuss ethnicity or race with you, but to forbid you from doing so, as long as you continue to promote your ideas in such a way. There are of course lots of other places on the Internet where you can discuss your ideas, but this is not one. What I suggest you do going forward if you still wish to edit is to spend your remaining block period reading up on some of the history of this topic on Wikipedia, come back and edit other areas not related to race or ethnicity for say three months, and then request (if you wish) a relaxation of your topic ban. Of course, we are still discussing it at AN/I and it may be that consensus will go against my proposal in which case we shall have to see what we do next. In any case, I will certainly block you again (or extend your block, if applicable) if I see you make any more edits like this one in which you make offensive racial statements or this one in which you misuse a source to promote a racial point. I am terribly sorry in a way to have to block you and place this restriction on you because I know you are quite new here. But you have to realise, we are not here to chat, we are not here to discover new things, but only here to assemble and weight the existing sources then summarise them to build an encyclopaedia. Not everybody is cut out to do this and editing here is a privilege, not a right. If you want to talk further with me here, then you may do so, as long as it isn't a continuation of your racial theories. If you want to request an unblock then you may use the template in the block notice. And if you want to post something for consideration at the AN/I discussion then simply do so here and one of us will copy it for you. Best regards, --John (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read the discussion though? There were many editors on the Germans talk page who agreeed with my terminology, and most of them were Jews like me. The thing is, before Adler re-started the discussion we actually reached a compromise with those we argued with. That's the thing, Wikipedia should be objective, not based on emotions. The Holocaust didn't happen because a German said "You Jews are not ethnically German", Jews never claimed they were otherwise they wouldn't state they are Jews on a census, the Holocaust happened because a German said "You are Jewish therefore you don't have the same rights as us and you are less of a German national", that's what happened.

It's a fact, ethnicity is based on history (including origin) and identity, so it is a fixed thing, and no one ever said it's changable in academic literature! The point is, when someone clames that Jews are a religion and not an ethnicity, that's racism, but no one got blocked for claming that in the discussion. When Adler claimed that Sorbs are of German ethnicity, the last person to claim that was Hitler. Sorbs themselves are very protective of their identity and uniquiness!

I don't see how what I said was racist or offensive. The fact is, in this discussion on top I brought you a quote of a guy who called me a neo-Nazi. A German calling a Jew neo-Nazi! But for a reason that goes unnoticed and he is not blocked, though it was clearly said on the ANI discussion about him that he tries to promote a new definition of ethincity. Also, he said Sorbs and Jews should be considered ethnic Germans so they could get equal rights and treatment, that's a dangerous view because basically only if you say your ethnic German you deserve equal treatment. Those are racist views! Not mine. You are right, it's not a forum, but the discussion happened because we are talking about definitions which are not agreeable by everyone. I actually agreed to many forms of compromises! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's ok, I would like thise whole discussion to be copied to ANI please! From what I saw my quotes were taken out of context. I never said ethnicity is just genes, I said it is a part of it, while Adler said Jews and Sorbs should be considered ethnic Germans so they could get equal rights (as if they don't deserve them otherwise) and called me a neo-Nazi while I always stated that all ethnicities should get equal rights and no ethnicity is better then the other (how is that racist?). I think this discussion clearly shows where I stand and could give people a more objective view of what I saiw! The fact is, even now the discussion on Germans goes one and many people (mostly Jewish) state the same thing as I do!

The only mistake I did was to go down to the level of personal attacks, that's something that was totally not needed and I think it's easy to avoid by simply adopting a rule of not saying what is not relevant to the discussion (which includes insults). The fact is, the only uer I owed an apoliogy to was IIIruate, and I apologized to him because I was rude to him when I sohuldn't have. However, with Adler I tried to be polite until he used the neo-Nazi claim. Should I have went to his level and go crazy? No, but at the time I actually didn't know there is a way for me to complain on it on Wikipedia. Should have I offended Maunus? No, but the fact is, he kept on calling my statements racist which I find offensive and far from reality. Would I control my temper from no one? Definitely. Will I not comment on ethnic topics? No. I think that my problem was behaviour, not what I said on the ethnic topic. It wasn't what I said, it was how I said it. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

One final attempt to make you understand why you are wrong - you wrote that "It's a fact, ethnicity is based on history (including origin) and identity, so it is a fixed thing, and no one ever said it's changable in academic literature!". This is entirely incorrect. Even the slightest familiarity with the social sciences will make it clear that ethnicity is anything but fixed. It is learned. It is situational - the ideology of ethnicity often portrays it as fixed, timeless, and based solely on 'descent', but the demonstrable reality is that it isn't. Just look at census data from pretty well anywhere where people have been asked to define their ethnicity more than once - a significant proportion will give a different answer each time. And what 'ethnicity' would I give, if I was asked? I'm 'English' culturally, having lived here all my life, but I have significant ancestry from Scotland, Ireland, France (or possibly Belgium) - that I know of, I'm sure there will be more. Does that make me less 'English'. Well no - it makes me typically English. And this is the norm. Study the subject. Learn about it, from the academic field that studies it. It is a complex issue, with no easy answers - and coming out with easy answers that are demonstrably wrong isn't going to get you far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many types of ethnicity! What you described fits the description of the Arab ethnicity. You have many different genes in many regions and the Arab ethnicity is more of a cultural ethnicity then a genetic one.

But in the Jewish case, when you have different Jews, considering themselves religiously Jewish or not, living in different contries, what makes them all Jewish? The fact they know they are Jewish and their ancestors came to Europe from the middle east. That's what I'm trying to say! Why would an assimilated Jew who doesnt believe in Judaism insist on marrying someone Jewish and states they are Jewish in a census?

The point is, even in a case where an ethnicity in changable, how is that related to Einstein who stated he is Jewish and wants nothing to do with Germans and Germany? I actually agreed ages ago to keep Marx in the image! But I don't remember Marx saying he's German to, that's the thing, assuming he became ethnically German because his parents converted to Christianity is ignoring the fact Jews are not just a religious but also an ethnic identity. Adler insists that Einstein is German though he himself said he is not German and wants nothing to do with Germany.

Also, if ethnicity is choice, how come Adler automatically assumes all German Jews are ethnically German? Isn't it a bit contrasting the logic in the first place? How can you assume automatically all German Jews and Sorbs are ethnically German? It's false and it has no scientific base. Einstein clearly said he isn't, all the Sorbs I met never referred to themselves as German, so how can you force the identity of the majority on minorities?

I live in England. I never saw an Indian, Pakistani, Nigerian, Jamaican or Jewish person saying they are of English ethnicity. They refer to themselves as British, which is their nationality. But no one of them stated they are ethnically English! There is a reason in the article of English people in the Infobox they don't have even one Jew or Afro-British person, are you saying the English people article is racist? Same thing about the Russians article. How do you explain that situation?

The situation you described is a typical one. You have many different ethnicities, you belong to all of them, and it's your choice with which to identify. For example, a person might be half Italian and half French but identify only with one of them, it's his complete right. He can also identify with both of them, who said you need to choose one?

But for example in the article about Germans it clearly refers to Germans as the German speaking population which identified as German during the Holy Roman Empire, that does not include Jews! Jews have thier own identity. If a Jew chooses to see himself only as German and nothing to do with Jews, fine, whatever, we don't need to force on him what to be. I think he's still ethnically Jewish but I don't really care because it's his right and non of my business, but the fact is, when Eisntein clearly says he is only Jewish and wants nothing to do with Germans or Germany, how come that can be ignored? How can Adler automatically assume all German citizens are of German ethnicity? Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you are clearly intent on redefining ethnicity according to your own confused, unsourced and factually incorrect definitions, rather than that of the relevant field (the social sciences), I have to suggest at this point that a topic ban on you contributing to any article relating to the subject is not only justifiable, but necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do I have a feeling you wrote that without reading what I wrote first? I said if a Jew doesnt consider himself a Jew and wants nothing to do with Jews then I'm not going to argue with him not being counted as Jewish. I think he's still a Jew (a self-hating Jew), but it's non of my business, I don't think it's worth a discussion. You see yourself as a German, be a German. But the fact is, how can you define Einstein as an ethnic German if he wasn't an ethnic German and said he wants nothing to do with Germans? Also, how can you automatically assume all German Jews are ethnic Germa, when in fact most stated they are Jews on censuses and made sure to marry only Jews?

Also, I started by saying there are many ways to define ethnicity, but you need to examine each case separately, You can't deny Jews are an ethnic group!

I see why my behaviour should be changed, but I don' see what's the problem with what I wrote. In fact, I doubt you read what I wrote because you didn't respond to any point I made. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

One reason he might not have responded is probably because you have been repeating the same things for weeks now despite numerous attempts to illustrate just what about your view on ethnicity is wrong. - Rex (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

How exactly is it wrong. Einstein wasn't of German ethnicity and stated he's Jewish and wants nothing to do with Germany and Germans, how is it wrong what I said? You can't get a more reliable source then that.

Also, I said if a Jew wants nothing to do with Jews and doesnt see himself as one... it's my right to say he is still ethnically Jewish, at the same time, I highlighted the fact I wouldn't argue with him because it's his choice and is non of my business. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source that Germany used to have an ethnic census and Jews registered in it as a separate group? they were registered in a religious census, and even the Nazis used synagogues and other religious papers to find Jews... Yuvn86 (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The census of 1933 asked for Jewishness only in terms of religion, which seems telling. Surely the Nazis would not have dropped a question on ethnicity. Then in the census of 1939 they did ask for ethnic Jews and for 'mongrels'. I also know that the Nazis had trouble distinguishing the large number of completely assimilated Jews (many of whom had even voted for them or were even members of their party) from what they considered to be ethnic Germans. Because they were often indistinguishable. That's why they created the Judenkartei ('Jew Files') in 1935. According to their ideology, Jews could not become ethnic Germans, and they meant to enforce this. So they collected member lists of Jewish associations etc. and created genealogical files. This is discussed, among other questions related to Jewish identity in Germany, in this talk by Deborah Hertz.

Guitar hero, the most important problem I have with you is the claim that Jewish ethnicity is automatically exclusive to any other ethnicity that is simply based on living together and having a common culture. When they are in fact obviously compatible and there are academic sources saying this specifically. You can only deny this by using a definition of ethnicity that became popular roughly around 1900 (I think), was an important factor in the rise of the Nazis and the rise of antisemitism, and has been properly discredited since. Before and after the heyday of these ethnoromantic notions nobody saw a contradiction. After the second World War, science moved on, as these notions simply don't make sense in a place like Europe. (Jews may be one of the few cases to which one can apply an essentialist origin-based definition of ethnicity without getting into severe logic troubles.) Unfortunately these notions are still rampant in Eastern Europe, and I think that this is the key to understanding the continuation of severe antisemitism in that region. Hans Adler 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is, why do you automatically decide all Jews and Sorbs are ethnically German? When you belong to one ethnic group you at least have no problem to marry somewhere from the same group, but yet, many Sorbs insist on marrying only Sorbs and many Jews insist on marrying only Jews, while you seem to automatically decide they are all Germans.

Einstein himself never stated he is German, yet stated that he is a Jews and wants nothing to do with Germans, so how can you automatically decide for him and all those Jews from Germany that they are ethnically Germans? Don’t you find it weird that those were few Jewish editors that showed objection to your definition of ethnicity in the first place?

Marx can be in the info box because I don’t remember reading him identifying as a Jew (though I don’t remember him identifying with Germans), but Einstein definitely should not be in the info box.

Also, how come you ignored my suggestion to include a Turk in the info box? I don’t mind going with a different definition of ethnicity, but if it at least stays consistent. How come a Jew can be of German ethnicity, but not a Turk?

If it’s up to choice, leave it up to choice. If a Jew wants nothing to do with Jews and sees himself as something else, no problem. Marx can be considered German, but you can’t make the decision for everyone. I had ancestors in Germany and they saw themselves only as ethnically Jews! They wouldn’t mind to identify as Germans by nationality, but there is a difference. You shouldn’t exclude them from their German nationality, but you also can’t decide what their ethnicity is for them. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar, you are the one who is claiming the right to decide on other's ethnicity. Hans Adler is not saying that all Jews who are German Nationals are ethnically German he is saying that they MAY BE, and you are saying that they can't be even if they consider themselves to be and other Germans consider them to be so. You are the one arguing against all knowledge that ethnicity is exclusive and biological. You are the one denying other Jews the right to choose to have other ethnicities if they so wish.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is precisely my point. I know a number of Jews living in Germany (and Austria, where the same principles apply with the added complications of distinguishing Austrian and German, given the recent split, common language and culture, and the fact that most Austrians are also ethnically Bavarian). To the extent that I know this, they are all of the pig-eating, Hanukkah tree for the children variety who wouldn't have much trouble marrying Christians, but also have deep Jewish roots which they preserve. (Einstein clearly was like this in his youth. His first wife was Serbian Orthodox and their sons were baptised.) I don't know to what extent they think of themselves as Germans, simply because I am not going to ask them. One reason is that we don't even have good precise words to speak about this. Another reason is that it's an awkward question and they may not know or may not want to admit whatever it is that they feel. (Also, just by asking I would indicate an unhealthy need to get closure on the matter.) And one reason is that if ethnic group makes any sense for Germans nowadays, then it's the modern social science definition that you refuse to acknowledge and that in the case of the Germans today amounts to shared culture rather than ancestry. Telling Jews that they cannot also be Germans in the fullest sense is like telling them that they cannot also speak French.

German ethnicity is an automatic consequence of integration into German society. You can reject it with words, but if you are otherwise fully integrated (never mind any other affiliations; nobody cares about them), then this has no more effect than if a (somewhat confused, presumably) rabbi with an entirely Jewish family tree were to denounce Jewish ethnicity. There is an effect, though: Most people are going to be nice to them and stop saying that they are a member of their rejected ethnicity. And some people may be a bit miffed. But most are going to treat them exactly as before, and they will be just as marriageable from the point of view of their rejected ethnicity as before.

That's how German ethnicity works today, and that's essentially how it worked before ethnoromantic ideas became fashionable. And that's civilisatorial progress. Especially since we no longer require religious conversion or a break with the other ethnicity, but instead (at least in the case of Jews and of national minorities) also support the other one.

If Germans will allow a relapse to a definition of German ethnicity that relies primarily on descent and genetics – not very likely, but possible now that Allied control over the country is gone – then there is a very real danger that the Jews I know will, in a few decades, say very clearly that they are not German, after all, in any sense of the word. Because the Germans are doing it again. Hans Adler 18:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

But what you say is irrelevant to defenitions of ethnicity. You keep on saying about Germans not returning to the Nazi times and all those stuff, but why should it be relevant to us? As another Jewish user from the discussion said, why should we hide our identity and claim to be Germans just not to "tempt" the German majority to kill us? It's the same think as saying: "Dress modestly and you won't get raped". Don't you see the problem in that logic? Saying that those definitions of ethnicity lead to a Holocaust is like saying cofee leads to heroin. The problem is not in the defenition of what is ethnicity but in the approach of how you teach an ethnicity.

Instead of making everyone ethnic Germans, which to be fair is very patronizing and politicaly motivated, why not teach Germans that people have different ethnicities but they are all equal as humans and ethnicity is nothing but coincindence?

You in the discussion were clearly claiming that German Jews are ethnically German and Jewish, but that's killing the whole meaning of ethnicity. That's nationality. If a Jew wants to claim to be ethnically German? Fine, but don't decide it for the whole population of German Jews. If they would consider themselves ethnically German they would not marry Jews and wouldn't even be aware of being Jewish. Einstein was a typical German Jew in that sense. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar hero you Hans adler never once claimed that all German Jews are ethnically GErman, he claimed that they could be and that there is no a priori reason to assume that they are not in absence of evidence to the contrary. It is this consistent misrepresentation of other people's arguments that is highly frustrating and which makes dialoguing and arguing with you near impossible.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

He claimed that German Jews had two ethnicities, and that's already a patronizing claim that is far from the truth. If a Jew wanted to be German they started by converting to christianity like Marx's parents did. Trust me, they didn't do it because they started believing in Jesus, it was to assimilate in ths society. Marx is fine to be in the infobox. But you can't make decisions for others like Einstein. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, he claimed that they could have two ethnicities and you denied that that was possible. And No I do not trust you to decide what a million people you have never known thought and felt and experienced.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, that's accurate. On one hand there are people like Michael Wolffsohn, who is well known in Germany as he often comments on current affairs on TV. I was pretty sure that he considers himself to be German as well as Jewish (both in every respect), so I did a bit of research and found a source according to which he describes himself as a "Gebrochener" (roughly: broken man, but that translation may be misleading), politically and religiously, as a German, a Jew, and an Israeli. [8] That's the best you can expect as non-Nazi Germans tend not to talk about ethnicity in those words.

On the other hand there are people such as an old Jewish couple I heard of, who reluctantly came to Germany with their children and hid in an appartment because they wanted nothing to do with the Germans. (Of course I haven't met them personally.)

And in between there are orthodox rabbis who you can recognise from far away, who may or may not speak German, who may or may not be integrated into German society to a certain degree, but who are in any case quite unlikely to think of themselves as ethnic Germans even if they hold a German passport. Sometimes I see one of them, but I don't get to know them because they are Jewish only and I am German only and so there is little reason for contact. If one of them started regularly appearing on German TV like Michael Wolffsohn does, people might think it strange.

There is no danger you will be converted to Germanity against your will if you move to Germany. Just make sure that German doesn't become your preferred language, or make a point of attacking everyone and their mother purely for being German at every possible opportunity. Sexual relations with non-Jews are OK, just nothing permanent and certainly no kids with them. If you follow these rules, you can even accept a German passport without any danger of suddenly finding yourself in two ethnic groups simultaneously.

But other people have other ideas for their life, and you must respect that. Karl Marx seems to be a good example. So is Albert Einstein's early life, though we should absolutely respect his later decisions. Hans Adler 20:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we have less differences then I thought. I would definitely support a concensus of removing Einstein but keeping Marx! I think that makes sense. The question is, who should take his place in the collage?Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you'd be helping yourself by copying this to ani, you would just dig the hole deeper. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Coming here from ANI, I agree. I have a couple of points to make and then I'll go: No one called you, or accused you, of being a Nazi. That's nonsense. He said "I don't know if you are...." and listed several options, one of which is Nazi, one of which is Jewish. His point, and please read this carefully and embrace this, was that it does not matter who you claim to be on Wikipedia in almost all cases. You keep saying you're a Jew like that is some kind of ability to know more about Jews than non-Jews. Allow me to repeat: that matters not at all. No one cares, or at least no one should care. That's not how Wikipedia works. You can be Jewish, or not, or Nazi, or who-gives-a-flying-flip, and it matters 0%. What matters is sourcing. Your personal attacks were completely out of line.

Second part: Be aware of how your posts appear to others. They may not convey the message you wish to convey: every time I see you type that you're a Jew I think to myself, wtf? It isn't even a point to make, it's useless here. And it's useless (insofar as establishing bona fides for knowledge about Jews) everywhere else, to be honest with you. I know Americans who haven't a clue what the Bill of Rights is, and Brits who are experts on the US Constitution; Christians who don't know the Bible or that once there was only the Catholics and no other sects of Christianity, and Atheists who are experts on the Bible and Christian history; and of course Jews who haven't the faintest knowledge of their history or their heritage. Your birth does not grant you some kind of magic authority, so you need to get over that. And if that's not what you're trying to say every time you proudly trumpet your Jewishness, then be aware: that is precisely what it looks like to us when we see it. Oh and feel free to insult the heck out of the ethnicity of small dogs, but don't call me a bitch or we'll have words. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 16:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! I agree it's not importent to be Jewish in this discussion, but as a Jew, it's annoying someone speaks for us and decides if we're an ethnicity or no. I was mentioning it to prevent people from saying me, Evildoer187 and other Jews in the discussion are racists for saying what we said, which has nothing do with reality. I do agree I mentioned it to much. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You again misrepresent what other editors have said. Not a single editor in the entire discussion has claimed that being Jewish is not an ehtnicity. It may however be just as annoying to other Jews that you take the right to decide whether they can have other ethnicities in addition to their Jewish one or not, and whether their identity should be determined by your claims about what ethnicity their ancestors were.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I never made the decision for other Jews. I said ages ago that though I dona't agree with it I understand while Marx would stay in the article, but there is not even a bit of doubt Einstein shouldn't due to his own statements! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree and Hans Adler agrees with that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we have an agreement! I would support a concensus of keeping Marx and removing Einstein. To be fair, I already agreed to it a week ago, what happened then was I didn't like what I found as Adler's patronizing approach, but I did like the last thing he wrote, which is less patronizing and more choice based. My point is it's dangerous to make a patronizing decision regarding all Jews and Sorbs, those decisions are up for individuals to decide. I definitely like the definition respecting personal choices, which is the last thing Adler wrote. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome; I hope you note the irony of your protesting that you're not a racist because you're a Jew. You do realize that's not a valid argument, right? I know of several Jews who are bigots personally. You really, really need to drop that line. I also note I have yet to see anyone actually call you a racist, although I confess there are reams of text and I may have missed it. What I have seen is people informing you that the arguments you use have been used by racists to justify their racism, and that they have been used to justify genocide and other racist actions, that that's true. Your personal views are not at issue regarding that. I have also seen people informing you, as I just have, that you being a Jew doesn't mean you're not a racist - and it doesn't. The two are not mutually exclusive. That's not the same as calling you a racist, that's merely making a logical point. Try not to take things so personally, ok? Doing so only gets everyone off topic. KillerChihuahua 19:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Being Jewish doesnt mean you are not racist, there are Jewish racist to. However, being Jewish shows I'm not racist towards Jews, and that's what me and other Jewish editors were being blamed for. The fact I'm not racist is proven by the fact no ethnicity or race are better then the other.

But that's what I'm trying to say! Racists don't use arguments saying "you are not ethnically German because you are Jewish", that's not an argument, that's like saying you are wearing black shoes because you are not wearing a different colour, like, whatever, ok. Racists say that one ethnicity or race is better then the other, that's where the problem starts. All ethnicities are equal - I don't care who my daughter marries as long as he is not religious, not a right-wing and as long as he treats her nice. Colour and race don't play a role. I agree that I went to far with some people, with some because they didn't deserve it (like IIIruate, to who I wrote an apology on his wall), and some because they are not worth it. I also agree I probably should have sounded less dictator about what I said, but so should have the other side. However, I don't see why we are not discussing my behaviour, which was wrong, but how I view things. My opinion is simple (I take it to an extreme on purpose, ignore the fact the situation is illogical, just look at the situation itself): I don't think it's racist to say a black man can't become a white man, or a white man can't become a black man. But I do think it's racist to say that black and white have different biological features which determine who they are or that one of them is better than the other because of their colour. I don't think the difference is the problem but what meaning you give to the different. I know it's different with ethnicities because it's a more flexible, but you get the point. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As for whether Guitar hero is a racist or not, I think the question might still be open - however, anyone using the phrase "self-hating Jew" in the way it was above [9] is beyond any reasonable doubt unfit to edit any Wikipedia article relating to Jews, regardless of his/her own ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That's getting redicilous. Are you serious? A self-hating Jew is an existing term for a person coming from Jewish ethnicity but hating Jews and wanting nothing to do with them. What's wrong with what I said? I basically said a person coming from Jewish ethnicity but hating Jews and wanting nothing to do with them is a self-hating Jews. All I said was if a Jew says he's not a Jew and wants nothing to do with Jews I think he's a self-hating Jew, however, I wouldn't argue with him because it's his business. Read the article, I didn't coin the term! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a pejorative term based on an essentialist interpretation of Jewishness. It is basically calling someone a race traitor. Breivik justified his killing of multiculturalists by a similar reasoning of ethnic treason.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Again taking it to an extreme. Where did I say any damage should be done to this person? I said that it's his business and I'm not going to argue with him, how exactly did I say this person should be killed? That's taking it to extreme! Did you watch the film Django Unchained? Really good film, recommended! There is a person called Steven there who is black but hates black people and loves the owner of the plantation, do you agree that Steven is a self-hating black person? I think he is. Same thing! A Jew who says he's not Jewish and doesnt like them is a self-hating Jew. Does it mean he needs to be killed? No. Does it mean he needs to be punished? No. Do I think he's a psycho? Yes, but it has nothing to do with the fact he has the right to be this way. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bigotry. Unfit to edit any Wikipedia article relating to Jews. Case closed.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, chill. You are not in a court, keyboard judge. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, please remember to comment on the content not the contributor. I'm all done here. KillerChihuahua 20:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to close

Can we close this discussion, please? There is no more to be said: discussion on who or what is a self-hating [fill in ethnicity/tribe/nationality] can be had elsewhere, like not on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree! The simple point is, my views of ethnicity are not racist, and they are not the problem. Even now on the German talk page the discussion goes on and many people present the same view as me: It's patronizing and not correct to assume all German Jews are ethnically German. If someone comes from a family like Marx's where they converted and wanted to be Germans, ok. But Einstein whose ancestors all made sure to marry only Jew and he himself said he's a Jew and wants nothing to do with Germany or Germans, what right do you have to force it on him? Or on the whole German Jewish population without bringing a single proof or survey stating they view themselves this way.

The point is, my behaviour was out of place. I shouldn't have went to a personal level, some didnt deserve it (IIIruate, and I apologized to him), and some are not worth it. I should have stayed objective and profressional. However, people here argue with me on a topic which is a topic for discussion and has long discussions on the Germans page, on the English page, on the French page, yet they try to force their opinion on me, which is unaccaptable. Will I filter my behaviour? Yes. Am I going to be more civil during discussions? Yes. Am I going to not say what I think of the terminology? No. I will contunie saying you can't force the German ethnicity all Jews and Sorbs simply because you feel like otherwise "Germany might return to Nazism" (like Adler said). We need to be objective, civil, but without pushing our personal POW. The fact is, I think a concensus should be reached and the scope needs to be re-defined. Even without me being present on the Germans talk page the discussion goes on and there are people saying the same things I said. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently Guitar hero thought I was joking when I told him to avoid the area of ethnicity going forward. I was not. I have extended the block to a week and revoked talk page access. If Guitar hero wants to appeal he can email me (or any admin) with an unblock request. Alternatively he can wait out his block and then observe the topic ban. --John (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Maunus has made a special pleading at my talk page to restore your block settings as he feels guilty at having engaged you here on a subject you are forbidden to discuss. I have accordingly rescinded your talk page lock and reset your block to the original expiry time. You need to remember that you are indefinitely banned from discussing race or ethnicity on Wikipedia, even here on your talk page. Could other editors please assist by not discussing anything here other than this user's conduct and how he intends to improve it in future? Thanks. --John (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not banned from discussing ethnicity simply because the discussion on ANI shows people don't just say to ban me but also not to ban me or not to ban for a while. I will be civil, I will not do personal attacks, but I will not refrain from the topic due to the fact I find it interesting and I can contribute in it. However, I do think that me an Adler just found a compromise. To be fair, I don't see why you extended my block in the first place. First of all, how can I contact you by email if you didn't give your email on the page? Second, how are we suppose to get an agreement if not discussing it? The fact is, I think we made progress due to the fact Adler suggested something I actually agree with. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

An administrator has topic-banned you. Obey the topic-ban. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant because many people on the ANI, some of them Admins, expressed a different view. The logical thing is to let me edit on the topic as long as I'm civil, I'm not going to not edit a topic I like simply because the ban is to harsh and fast. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, therefore no one obeys anyone. You talk, formulate a concensus. The fact is, it was KillerChihuahua who helped me understand what I did wrong and need to change, while John just pressed block and left. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So you intend to ignore the topic-ban? Yes or no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I already said, I will not follow the topic ban due to the fact I think it's unjustful. I deserve to edit on the topic and to proove I can do it civil. No, I don't respect a decision which was done without trying to moderate a situation or mentor the user. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised to read John state that Guitar hero is under a topic ban, when the discussion is still going on at ANI and Gh has not been officially informed about a community imposed topic ban. To Guitar Hero: I understand that a topic ban may be difficult for you to understand, but if the community (at ANI) decides to impose a topic ban, you will have to respect it (or you will be blocked again). You do however have the right to later appeal the topic ban. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had made that clear here. If there emerges a consensus that either the block or the ban was unwarranted, I will happily rescind. Until that happens, you should assume the ban stands. --John (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

But is an admin allowed to impose a topic ban on a user on his own ? I though it required a community consensus ? And let me add: I do think GH should stay away from the topic for the time being (and in general tone down his rethoric). With regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would respect a temporary topic ban with someone to help maybe train me, like was suggested by some people on the ANI. But history, ethnicities, nationalities, identities that's what my education is, that's what interests me so there's no point for me to be on Wikipedia then not that. That's the thing, I don't want it to look like a personal attack but there are people who when getting authority they use it to improve the situation and use harsh punishment only if discussion and talk didn't work, while the other type is using authority for the sake of authority, and I think that's what happened here with Jon. By ignoring his topic ban we actually reached a compromise! Why did we reach a compromise? Because I believe I remained civil during the discussion and it stayed on a professional level and that is the code I should use on Wikipedia while editing articles on the topic. Also, I want to point out that during the whole discussion on germans I didn't do edits to the article itself because I didn't want to do an edit without a compromise and didnt revery anyone! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for having continued my interaction with Guitar hero on the roof here. I had assumed that the topic ban was meant more narrowly / not meant to start immediately and had naively tried again to explain certain things that I and many others had many times explained before. I did this in good faith, hoping to make the ban unnecessary, but in retrospect it looks like entrapment. I am very glad that John has reacted so positively to Maunus' intervention before I was even aware of the problem.

As to Iselilja's question: I think the WP:ARBPIA sanctions are not applicable in this case; John did not even try to use them. The ban seems to be under item 1 of WP:BAN#Decision to ban. I guess strictly speaking it won't be in effect before (and unless) the discussion at WP:ANI#topic-ban? has been closed with a consensus for the ban. (Iselilja, WP:CBAN seems to be obsolete; apparently it refers to the Community sanctions noticeboard, abolished in 2007.) Hans Adler 22:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you need to apologise, you didn't do anything wrong here. We had a discussion, we reached a compromise. It was worth it! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I went on John’s page, and that’s what he wrote about me:

“On the other diff, I didn't say that it was "racist", I said that it was an "offensive racial statement". This relates to "Jews have mostly genes from the middle east, but they also have genes of people who converted to Judaism or from the pogrom rapes." I think I stand by my assertion that a pattern of making statements like this indicates someone who should stay away from this area.”

No offense, but it’s the same thing as a religious people who get offended by science because they don’t understand it. I studied History of the Jewish People in university and what it says is 100% true. As I explained before, every minority or ethnic group which experienced physical attacks (occupation, hate crimes) experienced rape.

Until the emancipation Jews lived in closed communities! Don’t forget, it’s not ethnicity that played role there but religion, and Jews wanted to self-preserve themselves by not mixing to much with the surrounding environment. If a person did something against the laws of the community, they got expelled (see Spinoza). If a women wanted to marry someone non-Jewish, the rabbi would not approve it and she would have to leave the community, unless the non Jewish person converted to Judaism, so that’s why not all the genes of Ashkenazi Jews come from the middle east but some also come from Europe, those were converts to Judaism.

But there is another source, rape. Cossacks attacked Jewish communities (pogroms), crusaders attacked them to. A thing that wasn’t uncommon during those attacks was rape. As a result of it, some women got pregnant. The children grew up in the Jewish community, were Jews, married Jews, and had Jewish children. In university we were told about how some women gave birth to babies 9 month after pogroms but got married after getting pregnant. Those cases were uncommon at different times but happened in an increased frequency after pogroms. And that’s what I’m referring to.

It turns out that I have more knowledge on the topic that John, but for a reason he thinks that knowing this should prevent me from editing on ethnicity. That's why his "topic ban" is invalid, he bases his decision on "offensive" comments I made which he finds offensive because he didn't study the topic! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar hero, the extent of John's knowledge of the topic is irrelevant to the ban, what matters is that you are trying to exclude all interpretations of ethnicity that do not conform to the one you personally favour (i.e. ancestry only), and the fact that you have made comments that are clearly offensive. If I were German, I would be very offended at your comment that "Germans have a thing for trying to make the Jewish ethnicity not exist". How would you feel if somebody posted that "Jews have a thing for trying to kill Palestinian children", or whatever? I would be furious, and rightly so, since both are just stupid and untrue accusations. In fact I'm pretty certain you would be livid as well, but that is just how a German might feel after reading your comment. I'm sure you harbour no ill will against Germans, but from some of your comments you come across as rabidly anti-German. I accept that you may have been taught at university that ethnicities are defined by ancestry only , but if you did, your teachers were not presenting all current interpretations. That is not a problem, but it becomes a problem when you are given sources for these other definitions, and still refuse to allow them on Wikipedia. Nobody is expecting you to agree with these other definitions, you are free to stick to the one you prefer in your own personal life, but you at least have to acknowledge that other definitions exist. When I first joined WP I also found it difficult to always understand that my personal convictions are irrelevant, and that what counts is whether or not you can present suitable sources for what you are saying. In your case, you would need to present a reliable source that said that ethnicities are always down to ethnicity, and this source would also need to be more authorative than sources stating the opposite. As this is impossible, the various definitions of "ethnicity" are all more or less equal as far as WP is concerned. I know that it can be frustrating to see things in WP that you don't agree with, but more often than not this neutrality also works in your favour. Finally, loudly proclaiming that you alone are the supreme authority on a particular subject ("It turns out that I have more knowledge on the topic..."), even if this were true, does not endear you to other editors, many of whom are very well-educated, and does not help to bring a discussion forward (or help argue against being blocked...). Accept these things, and you will be much happier here. This is just meant a friendly advice, most of us have had similar experiences one way or another. Best wishes, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Separately from the above block for your abusive behaviour, I have blocked you indefinitely (as a CheckUser action) because you have previously operated the account Danton's Jacobin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and several other abusive sock-puppets. You are not permitted to edit Wikipedia unless you successfully appeal the block of your original account. AGK [•] 14:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

And (somewhat redundantly, but just for the record), this editor is now also indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to race and ethnicity. This ban naturally applies to all, past or future, user names used by this sockpuppeter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi friend

In my opinion you have been railroaded for un-PC views of ethnicity which are both historically on-point, factually accurate, and throughly defensible through scholarly sources.

It's difficult to get back up and brush yourself off after the truck has hit you that hard, but if you'd like to resume editing WP productively down the road, I'd be happy to help you get there as best I'm able. You're pretty much looking at six months of no activity — meaning NO activity, either as an IP or through an alternate account; followed by an appeal from your original account to undo the block, which will need to be in the form of a samokritika (to use the Soviet term) acknowledging your errors of over-aggressive discourse and abuse of multiple accounts around a block, as well as a statement that you won't do such things again.

The topic ban is another matter and another kettle of fish — this is just to get back into good graces after socking around a block, which is considered a very severe party foul by the Administrative clique. You're probably permanently cashiered on that topic, but there are plenty of other things to write about in the realm of history and biography...

Your situation is rather sickening to me and I apologize on behalf of Wikipedia that the frenzy happened. The mob demands blood periodically, I am sorry to say. If you would like to discuss things frankly away from prying eyes, you are welcome to email me at MutantPop@aol.com Again: do not under any circumstances start another Wikipedia account and do not edit Wikipedia without signing in and we will see if the world is still spinning early this summer. Best regards, —Tim Davenport /// Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's good advice. In addition, the topic ban is indefinite, but on Wikipedia, that's never the same as eternal. (Some of our editors are very young and have quite a different personality a year later. And the community forgets quickly, though some will always remember.) It's hard to get rid of it if this is the only thing you are interested in, but if one of your accounts is unblocked and you start with uncontroversial topics, you will soon find that some of the friction you experienced will occur there as well. It's in the nature of the wiki rather than the topic. (See Talk:Burrito for a recent example.) If you ultimately find a way of dealing constructively with such situations, you can make a convincing case that your topic ban can be removed to give you another chance in the topic. Hans Adler 16:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)